On a thread that started as a congrats to Jeronne Maymon for winning Wisconsin's Mr. Basketball, Chicos reiterates a major objection he had/has to MU's hiring of Buzz Williams - that it was a "risky" hire. Chicos seems, as mviale so accuately points out, to be the consumate "fence straddler". Hence his definition of "risk" has more to do with perception than fact. This CYA approach to risk results in "safe" hirings like Bob Dukiet, the man who almost destroyed the program. As inept as Dukiet was, his resume was impeccable - 7 seasons at St. Peters with a 135-64 record. He was, according to Steve Rushin, considered "the hottest young coaching prospect in America." Billy Packer told anyone who would listen that Marquette was "gonna love this guy". He was an unmitigated disaster, yet the AD and the President (Chicos types) have "cover" for their ill advised decision.
Contrast this to MU's best hires - AL, KO, TC and hopefully Buzz. None of these guys were "safe". But each had qualities that that led those in charge to eschew the "safe" route. The AD and President could have gone the "chicos" route and brought in some stiff like Chris Lowery. As with Dukiet, the initial reaction would have mostly been positive. And when he failed, they could have pointed to his resume and told everyone "It's not my fault". Thank God the people in charge at MU have more courage and competence than that.
Ultimate fence straddler - love it. I just call him Makunga.
Anthony,
Good f'ing grief you guys beat dead horses for a living by continually bringing this up.
KO was not a risky hire. We are a toilet program at that point under Dukiet. Give me a break, risky hire...he was the #1 assistant in the country at the number 1 program and we were a losing program at the time. How in the hell is that a risky hire?
TC, also not a risky hire. He was the number 1 assistant on arguably the top or certainly top 5 program in the country at Michigan State. We were not even a NIT team when he was hired. Not that risky of a hire.
Risky hires are when you are established and hire non-established coaches. Non-risky hires are when you're at the bottom and have nothing to lose (see KO, AL, TC).
And the Dukiet hire was a classic MU cluster #$#^. First, we go after the guy down South who says no. Then we settle on Bob Dukiet. Who cares what Steve Rushin said. Hank Raymonds hire....Hank's a nice man and a great assistant coach but quite frankly Hank didn't do MU any favors as AD or as the head coach. Nothing more need be said.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "safe hire" as you will see I stated many times last year. But there are "more" safe hires than others.
But for the MILLIONTH TIME, I'm very pleased with what Buzz has done this year.....again.....again.....again.
As for the competence, you don't know if this hire was good nor will any of us for many years to come. It's funny as hell that you bash people here for not liking the process and claim to play Nostra Damus on how it would have all worked out yet in the very next breath you are doing the same thing yourself as if to guarantee what Buzz will do over the next 5 years. We don't know.
I said Bennett and Miller. After that I said why settle so fast....if Buzz is the guy, fine (I said) but try a few others before you go there. Try a McKillop, try a Weber, try for Keno. I thought they were "safer" hires, but certainly nothing is SAFE. Instead, MU said Buzz was the guy. That's fine....I've moved on, why haven't you?
And for Christ sake, don't we have a big game today? Why the F do you keep bringing this up? I don't get it, seriously, I don't.
Quote from: mviale on March 22, 2009, 12:23:23 PM
Ultimate fence straddler - love it. I just call him Makunga.
I just call you 寛大な猫
Sorry if you don't know Japanese. :D
It was absolutely a risky hire and nothing I've seen so far this year has alleviated my concern. He's done a nice job with a team loaded with upper classman who wanted to finish successful careers with another NCAA birth. We'll see how he does with a younger team, one with apparently some characters on it. There is no doubt Buzz is passionate, but I wonder if he's not just too peculiar for his own good.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 22, 2009, 12:40:08 PM
It was absolutely a risky hire and nothing I've seen so far this year has alleviated my concern. He's done a nice job with a team loaded with upper classman who wanted to finish successful careers with another NCAA birth. We'll see how he does with a younger team, one with apparently some characters on it. There is no doubt Buzz is passionate, but I wonder if he's not just too peculiar for his own good.
That is exactly right. But to "DARE" say this makes you not a Marquette fan, makes you a Buzz hater and also a communist according to some of these people. It's incredible.
It doesn't mean we don't want Buzz to succeed, of course we do (unlike some of these very clowns that actually WANTED Crean to fail...incredible). But the reality is the reality, it was a risky hire.
It's funny, Lenny brings up Steve Rushin as an example that Dukiet was a good hire. Yet there have to be 50 articles out there from writers saying Buzz was a risky hire. Does only Rushin's opinion count Lenny when it comes to writers? ::)
(By the way, Steve Rushin was a STUDENT when Bob Dukiet was hired as he graduated from Marquette in 1988 so was he pontificating on this great hire as a writer at the MU Tribune? Seriously?)A lot of fence sitters out there, eh Lenny? Or were they calling it like it is...a gamble. Doesn't mean it won't work, doesn't mean it can't work, doesn't mean people are cheering against him (in fact we want him to succeed), but it was still a risky hire and with MU at the top of their game, I didn't think a risky hire was needed to quickly. We made the decision in about 48 to 72 hours. He would have been there another week or two later. That was the point. Stop changing the facts.
http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=808250
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/31869834.html
http://www.postcrescent.com/ic/blogs/woods/2008/04/about-mu-ku-and-crying-foul.html
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/29527974.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3349522
Etc, etc
PRN and chicos - I cant think of a better pair? Or could I chicos?
Quote from: mviale on March 22, 2009, 12:50:03 PM
PRN and chicos - I cant think of a better pair? Or could I chicos?
寛大な猫
Is that "ouch, the fence hurts" in japanese?
Funny thing is, Cords has stated he was basically sold on Crean the first time he talked to him in Milwaukee, and went with it. This time around it seems like the same thing pretty much happened - the difference is, MU had an entire year to observe him up close and personal like, coupled with a glowing recommendation from the outgoing coach (I'm still convinced he was the succession plan all along dating back to when he was hired as an assistant.). They were comfortable with him and decided to hire him. Outside of the apparent lack of interest among the 'more experienced' coaches, what's the difference?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 22, 2009, 12:59:25 PM
Funny thing is, Cords has stated he was basically sold on Crean the first time he talked to him in Milwaukee, and went with it. This time around it seems like the same thing pretty much happened - the difference is, MU had an entire year to observe him up close and personal like, coupled with a glowing recommendation from the outgoing coach (I'm still convinced he was the succession plan all along dating back to when he was hired as an assistant.). They were comfortable with him and decided to hire him. Outside of the apparent lack of interest among the 'more experienced' coaches, what's the difference?
The reality of it, however, is that MU took quite a long time in that hiring process. About 25 days to hire Crean so I don't think the comparison is correct. There were many people involved (I was still working there at the time). Cords was sold on him up front but many others were involved in that hiring process (unlike the Deane hiring that was very much Cords led). A lot of chiefs in 1999 were involved in that process from Kliebahn to the guy in Blue and Gold (played at G'Town but I can't remember his name), to a number of others. Again, however, lower risk because we were at the bottom. When you're at the bottom, you take the risk. When you're not at the bottom, you don't need to take as much risk.
MU went with Buzz for a number of reasons. He could try to save the recruiting class with Taylor and Williams (didn't work, but he tried). He got the other Williams to still come to MU, that worked. The seniors on the team liked him so that kept continuity. He was a strong recruiter.
Chicos,
Only you could accuse someone of "beating a dead horse" on a topic on which you have hundreds of posts. The fact that you wrote 5 responses in a matter of minutes speaks volumes. Speaking of facts, I never called you a communist or a Buzz hater. I called you a mugwump. Some people bet on the game before it starts (Cottingham, Wild). Others want to wait until they see the final score.
I hated Crean, but you cannot begin to compare Buzz Williams' resume with Crean's. Williams' resume is probably as unimpressive as there is in major Division I basketball. Crean was at MSU for years, and at W. Kentucky and Pitt before that. Williams was with Billy Gillespie for a couple seasons, blew off New Orleans after one year and, other than that, worked at schools that make MSOE look like the Los Angeles Lakers.
Saying this was anything other than a risky hire is as odd as Williams seems to be.
who cares at this point?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 22, 2009, 01:12:27 PM
Chicos,
Only you could accuse someone of "beating a dead horse" on a topic on which you have hundreds of posts. The fact that you wrote 5 responses in a matter of minutes speaks volumes. Speaking of facts, I never called you a communist or a Buzz hater. I called you a mugwump. Some people bet on the game before it starts (Cottingham, Wild). Others want to wait until they see the final score.
But I'm not the one starting these threads and questions, only replying to them. Thus you are beating the dead horse. I dropped this months ago, but you guys keep bringing it up.
Also, I didn't say YOU called anyone a communist or buzz hater. I said these "CLOWNS" and they know who they are. It's the same cabal of 5 to 10 people.
That's a great analogy. ::) You have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Risks are worth taking, they're also important to weigh in your decisions. That's what Wild and Cottingham are paid to do. But there are measured risks as well. Let's hope they are right, I sure hope they are (even if the same 5 to 10 morons actually believe I want him to fail....silly).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 01:10:18 PM
The reality of it, however, is that MU took quite a long time in that hiring process. About 25 days to hire Crean so I don't think the comparison is correct.
What was going on during that 25 days? Crean was working. He was announced as MU's coach 2 days after MSU's season ended. Had they lost sooner you don't think he would have been hired sooner?
Quote from: mviale on March 22, 2009, 01:17:23 PM
who cares at this point?
No one except you guys who keep bringing it up by starting new threads and new posts about it.....oh the irony.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 22, 2009, 01:19:22 PM
What was going on during that 25 days? Crean was working. He was announced as MU's coach 2 days after MSU's season ended. Had they lost sooner you don't think he would have been hired sooner?
Yes, he would have been hired sooner but not by that much. I'm just telling you the trigger wasn't pulled on Crean completely for a little while. Let's put it this way, it wasn't going to be done in 48 to 72 hours like our last hire. MU was going to take it's time, do it right, do it's due diligence. The crop of assistant coaches that year was impressive.
MU wanted a Midwest guy, that was high on their list. They were tired of coaches bolting on them. They wanted a recruiter, someone clean, someone who didn't cheat and someone with pedigree.
Depending on who you ask, the other potential candidates were Tom Davis (too old), Barry Collier from Butler, Quin Snyder, Steve Alford, etc.
I'd say with the due diligence spent, we got the right guy. Though, back to Lenny's comments, all of the writers were saying each of these guys would be a home run and it didn't work out that way. Snyder was a bust and he cheated. Collier has been ok, but was in a black hole at Nebraska and ultimately became the AD at Butler a few years ago. Alford, no thanks though he was proclaimed the can't miss candidate. Thus proving the point that no one knows. I don't know if Buzz will work out and neither does anyone else here.
But so far, so good.
I agree it is a rather pointless discussion, and as I said, it is my belief that Buzz pretty much had the job before Crean's last season at MU even started.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 22, 2009, 01:31:19 PM
I agree it is a rather pointless discussion, and as I said, it is my belief that Buzz pretty much had the job before Crean's last season at MU even started.
Might be. Crean was getting offers from other schools and not taking them but my guess is if the IU job didn't open up, Crean would be leaving after this year with the big 3 graduating and Buzz might very well have been the guy. No doubt that when Crean left, he pushed HARD for Buzz to be the head coach (oh how that must make the Crean haters here feel squeamish. ;D )
Enough with the vanity posts....
Clearly there was an element of risk in hiring a guy with only three years experience as a major college assistant and one ugly year as a head coach.
That said, history suggests that big-time programs that promote from within or hire asisstants from other big-time programs fare far, far better than those that elect to hire a "experienced" coach from the mid- or small-major ranks.
And that was at the heart of the debate we seem to keep having. Noboby would have objected to Miller or Bennett over Buzz. I suspect the vast majority would have preferred it, myself included.
But what some of us couldn't grasp - and still can't - is the demand for the likes of Brad Brownell, Chris Lowery and Jim Les over Buzz. After this season, it's even more mind-boggling that some would hold onto those positions as all three of those programs are heading backwards now that those coaches are bringing in their own recruits.
MU's own experiences prove that the "experienced" head coach route typically ends poorly. Dukiet and Deane were busts. O'Neill and Crean each revived the program.
When Howland left Pitt, they looked within and landed gem. When Motta left Xavier, they looked within and landed a gem. When Dan Monson left Gonzaga, they looked within and landed a gem.
Or look at DePaul. Dave Leitao was pulled off Calhoun's staff and had the Blue Demons headed in the right direction. Then DePaul went and got an experienced guy from the mid-major ranks. Hasn't turned out too well so far, it seems.
Obviously there are instances in which mid-major guys flourished at the big-time level, but as best as I can tell those guys are more often the exception than the rule. Especially at programs like (and named) Marquette.
I'm staying out of this one. But, I'm not a clown either.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 12:32:01 PM
I just call you 寛大な猫
Sorry if you don't know Japanese. :D
I'm sorry you DO know japanese. They bombed our country and killed many Americans! You should really be proud!
Quote from: mu77vegas on March 22, 2009, 07:08:18 PM
I'm sorry you DO know japanese. They bombed our country and killed many Americans! You should really be proud!
Are you kidding me? The British at one time killed many Americans, too. So did the French, Mexicans, Canadians, etc.
I took Japanese at Marquette and at the University of Kansas in grad school. I'm sorry you think it's a bad idea to expand one's horizons.
Deane wasn't a bust Pakuni, but he certainly didn't keep things on the upward arc. I believe this guy Al McGuire was a mid major head coach, that seemed to work out pretty well.
One could argue the internal assistant coach route at MU hasn't exactly produced gems at MU either. Majerus?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Deane wasn't a bust Pakuni, but he certainly didn't keep things on the upward arc. I believe this guy Al McGuire was a mid major head coach, that seemed to work out pretty well.
One could argue the internal assistant coach route at MU hasn't exactly produced gems at MU either. Majerus?
Great than we can agree that pretty much any hire MU would have made last April would have been a risk - be it a mid-major coach with experience or a hire from within.
Quote from: mufanatic on March 22, 2009, 07:27:05 PM
Great than we can agree that pretty much any hire MU would have made last April would have been a risk - be it a mid-major coach with experience or a hire from within.
Ding ding ding...we have a winner. In fact, I said that very thing A YEAR AGO. All hires are a risk, but some are riskier than others. We went the RISKIER THAN NEEDED route, let's hope it pays off.
Good year this year. A lot of fun, very entertaining.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Deane wasn't a bust Pakuni, but he certainly didn't keep things on the upward arc. I believe this guy Al McGuire was a mid major head coach, that seemed to work out pretty well.
One could argue the internal assistant coach route at MU hasn't exactly produced gems at MU either. Majerus?
You and I may have different concepts of busts, but from my perspective, Deane:
1. Inherited a 1995 team had a nice NIT run, but should have been in the NCAAs (perhaps if Deane hadn't waited so long to make Hutchins a regular)
2. Lost to double-digit seeds in the opening weekend of both his NCAA tourney appearances
3. Produced back-to-back squads that didn't make any postseason appearances (including the first squad the team that Crean inherited)
4. Recruited only two all-conference type players in five seasons
Deane did worse than not keep things on an upward art. He sent things on a downward arc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Deane wasn't a bust Pakuni, but he certainly didn't keep things on the upward arc. I believe this guy Al McGuire was a mid major head coach, that seemed to work out pretty well.
One could argue the internal assistant coach route at MU hasn't exactly produced gems at MU either. Majerus?
Al McGuire was hardly a mid major coach. He coached at what was commonly referred to as "tiny Belmont Abbey". Not sure what the classifications were then, but the equivalent of DII or DIII today. That's why he was such a "risky" hire.
I don't disagree with your analysis, I just wouldn't call it a bust. Bob Dukiet = bust. Stever Yoder = bust. That doesn't mean I'm saying Deane's run was golden....it wasn't.
Now, please make sure not to say anything in German or Italian or our Vegas friend my blast you for being an Axis sympathizer.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 01:28:16 PM
Yes, he would have been hired sooner but not by that much. I'm just telling you the trigger wasn't pulled on Crean completely for a little while. Let's put it this way, it wasn't going to be done in 48 to 72 hours like our last hire. MU was going to take it's time, do it right, do it's due diligence. The crop of assistant coaches that year was impressive.
I still have to question what you mean by "due diligence." Basketball coaching is a small fraternity, and their past performance is an open book.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 01:28:16 PM
MU wanted a Midwest guy, that was high on their list. They were tired of coaches bolting on them. They wanted a recruiter, someone clean, someone who didn't cheat and someone with pedigree.
Depending on who you ask, the other potential candidates were Tom Davis (too old), Barry Collier from Butler, Quin Snyder, Steve Alford, etc.
And within about 15 minutes, you could have determined that Tom Davis was too old; Barry Collier was another Mike Deane/Bob Dukiet successful mid-major coach; Quin Snyder was slimy as hell; and Steve Alford looked like a short timer.
It wouldn't have taken two weeks to conduct that due diligence--hell, it wouldn't have taken two HOURS!
As for the "due diligence" on the group of candidates last year, what could you have possibly learned that would have overcome the Mike Deane/Bob Dukiet comparison that would be applied to Keno Davis, Brad Brownell, Jim Les, Chris Lowery, Bob McKillop etc?
What "due diligence" on Bruce Weber would have changed the fact that in four years he took a team of Bill Self recruits to the final four, and three years later had a losing record in a weak year in the Big 10? The guy had HUGE question marks, and I don't see that it's shameful to decide--given the circumstances last year--that you did not want him.
I think MU probably had enough intelligence to decide that they did not want a mid-major guy. That left elite up-and-comers like Sean Miller and Tony Bennett. Or assistants--either your own or somebody else's. Given the year-long chance to see Buzz in person, I think there was certainly enough there to make a wise decision in a short period of time.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 22, 2009, 07:52:08 PM
I still have to question what you mean by "due diligence." Basketball coaching is a small fraternity, and their past performance is an open book.
And within about 15 minutes, you could have determined that Tom Davis was too old; Barry Collier was another Mike Deane/Bob Dukiet successful mid-major coach; Quin Snyder was slimy as hell; and Steve Alford looked like a short timer.
It wouldn't have taken two weeks to conduct that due diligence--hell, it wouldn't have taken two HOURS!
As for the "due diligence" on the group of candidates last year, what could you have possibly learned that would have overcome the Mike Deane/Bob Dukiet comparison that would be applied to Keno Davis, Brad Brownell, Jim Les, Chris Lowery, Bob McKillop etc?
What "due diligence" on Bruce Weber would have changed the fact that in four years he took a team of Bill Self recruits to the final four, and three years later had a losing record in a weak year in the Big 10? The guy had HUGE question marks, and I don't see that it's shameful to decide--given the circumstances last year--that you did not want him.
I think MU probably had enough intelligence to decide that they did not want a mid-major guy. That left elite up-and-comers like Sean Miller and Tony Bennett. Or assistants--either your own or somebody else's. Given the year-long chance to see Buzz in person, I think there was certainly enough there to make a wise decision in a short period of time.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 07:22:08 PM
I took Japanese at Marquette and at the University of Kansas in grad school.
Should have studied Mandarin Chinese instead. That's where it's at.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 22, 2009, 08:19:23 PM
Should have studied Mandarin Chinese instead. That's where it's at.
Agreed! After we do through "nuclear inflation" China will be THE world power! Buy gold and silver. Short the dollar!
anyone wathc texas A&m this year mega talented, they have Buzz to thank for that roster. If buzz can continue to recruit he will be succesful, coaching is over exagaerated the best coaches are the best coaches becuase they have the best talent. winning i s90% talent. As bad of a coach as Cream was Buzz can only be better, recruit better too and we will take a step forward. Crean signed 2 good classes in 9 years, buzz is 1 for 1.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 22, 2009, 07:42:55 PM
Al McGuire was hardly a mid major coach. He coached at what was commonly referred to as "tiny Belmont Abbey". Not sure what the classifications were then, but the equivalent of DII or DIII today. That's why he was such a "risky" hire.
My point was he was a HEAD coach from another program, back in those days they didn't have near as many DI schools as there are today....thus the term mid major didn't really exist. But the man had run his own program for a number of years rather then hiring an assistant. Equivalent of hiring today's mid major.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 22, 2009, 07:52:08 PM
I still have to question what you mean by "due diligence." Basketball coaching is a small fraternity, and their past performance is an open book.
And within about 15 minutes, you could have determined that Tom Davis was too old; Barry Collier was another Mike Deane/Bob Dukiet successful mid-major coach; Quin Snyder was slimy as hell; and Steve Alford looked like a short timer.
It wouldn't have taken two weeks to conduct that due diligence--hell, it wouldn't have taken two HOURS!
As for the "due diligence" on the group of candidates last year, what could you have possibly learned that would have overcome the Mike Deane/Bob Dukiet comparison that would be applied to Keno Davis, Brad Brownell, Jim Les, Chris Lowery, Bob McKillop etc?
What "due diligence" on Bruce Weber would have changed the fact that in four years he took a team of Bill Self recruits to the final four, and three years later had a losing record in a weak year in the Big 10? The guy had HUGE question marks, and I don't see that it's shameful to decide--given the circumstances last year--that you did not want him.
I think MU probably had enough intelligence to decide that they did not want a mid-major guy. That left elite up-and-comers like Sean Miller and Tony Bennett. Or assistants--either your own or somebody else's. Given the year-long chance to see Buzz in person, I think there was certainly enough there to make a wise decision in a short period of time.
As I said before, I hope MU got it right. We'll know in a few years.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2009, 11:23:57 PM
My point was he was a HEAD coach from another program, back in those days they didn't have near as many DI schools as there are today....thus the term mid major didn't really exist. But the man had run his own program for a number of years rather then hiring an assistant. Equivalent of hiring today's mid major.
There are 70-75 teams in the "Big 6". After that come the mid majors, roughly the 75-150th most recognized of 350 D1 teams. Comparing Belmont Abbey of the mid 60's to an SIU, say of today is just not accurate.
More to the point, though, Al's record at Belmont Abbey his first 2 years (with someone else's players) was 45=5. His last 2 years, with teams consisting of only his own guys, he was 12-37! Easily the "riskiest" hire in MU history, one that today would generate outrage. And all we got out of it was the best 10 year run by anyone not named Wooden.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 23, 2009, 12:20:53 AM
There are 70-75 teams in the "Big 6". After that come the mid majors, roughly the 75-150th most recognized of 350 D1 teams. Comparing Belmont Abbey of the mid 60's to an SIU, say of today is just not accurate.
More to the point, though, Al's record at Belmont Abbey his first 2 years (with someone else's players) was 45=5. His last 2 years, with teams consisting of only his own guys, he was 12-37! Easily the "riskiest" hire in MU history, one that today would generate outrage. And all we got out of it was the best 10 year run by anyone not named Wooden.
You continue to fail to mention where we were, which is as much a part of the risk calculation as anything. Let's use a football example. If you're toward the end of the game and have the ball and the LEAD, do you throw a hail mary (risky play) or try to maintain where you are at? If you're trailing at the end of the game with the ball are you more apt to throw the hail mary?
When MU hired Al McGuire, we were 5-21.....the 2nd worst season in Marquette history (only to be outdone during the war when we were 2-13). So to say it was the riskiest hire when you're at absolute bottom is not a fair characterization. You have nothing to lose at that point. A risky hire (at least perceived) would be if we were 21-5 and hired McGuire.
That is why so many pundits (not just me, but those same writer folks you referenced in a different post) thought Buzz was "risky" because MU was in a good spot.
As far as Belmont goes, you're not telling the whole story. He coached them to 5 post season appearances so it wasn't just with the "previous guys players". He had two poor years to finish up at Belmont....but do you know why that was the case? ;)
Al McGuire was a former NBA player!! He was a great, great college player at St. John's. If there were a press conference announcing his hiring at Marquette we'd be talking about his basketball accomplishments, not how many letters he wrote pleading for jobs or how many coaches press conferences he "studied" on ESPN.
There is no comparison. None.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 23, 2009, 01:21:48 PM
Al McGuire was a former NBA player!! He was a great, great college player at St. John's. If there were a press conference announcing his hiring at Marquette we'd be talking about his basketball accomplishments, not how many letters he wrote pleading for jobs or how many coaches press conferences he "studied" on ESPN.
There is no comparison. None.
We'd also be talking about all the former NBA players who went on to become great college coaches.
But that would be a very, very short conversation, wouldn't it?
oops.
TC was in no way a risky hire. He was almost as hot as Alford & Quinn. He also was probably the best hire. Yes I did just write that.
And I think Buzz was not a risky hire. If he stays at A&M one more year and then follows Billy G to UK, all of a sudden he's the hottest AC out there.
What I'm proud of with MU in this whole coaching search is they went with what worked.
KO (young, major program AC)
TC (young major program AC)
Buzz (young major program AC)
Hiring Les or McKillop would have been a reactionary move (like Deane). It would be saying we need stability we need an old guy who will never leave. I say forget that. Hire a young hungry AC who wants a better job. He'll work his tail off to get it. If he leaves you, fine, go hire the next guy. As long as your coaches are bolting for better programs, you're doing OK.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 23, 2009, 01:28:17 PM
We'd also be talking about all the former NBA players who went on to become great college coaches.
But that would be a very, very short conversation, wouldn't it?
Clever! Al McGuire was hired in 1964.
I'd be interested in seeing the list of Navarro College graduates with giant holes and red flags in their resumes who went on to become great college coaches. Is it longer than the one that contains Al McGuire?
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on March 23, 2009, 01:44:20 PM
What I'm proud of with MU in this whole coaching search is they went with what worked.
KO (young, major program AC)
TC (young major program AC)
Buzz (young major program AC)
Hiring Les or McKillop would have been a reactionary move (like Deane). It would be saying we need stability we need an old guy who will never leave. I say forget that. Hire a young hungry AC who wants a better job. He'll work his tail off to get it. If he leaves you, fine, go hire the next guy. As long as your coaches are bolting for better programs, you're doing OK.
+1, Great points.
The hiring of Buzz is without a doubt the riskiest hire in school history. The stakes are higher than they ever have been and MU flinched when TC left. An athletic department ill prepared to make the moves needed to make the hire less risky. The brass at MU did not do the proper homework.
I said a month ago who would you rather be in the coaching world, TC @ Indiana or Buzz@ MU. I felt a year ago that MU admin had no idea how to search for tier 1 BE quality coach and I believe that more now than ever. Never had anything against Buzz and that holds true today.
IMO this hire will ultimately be the biggest mistake in MU basketball history. TC said he took Indiana because it was Indiana...maybe he left because it was MU. The BE is not for the weak of heart and the coaching resumes of the other coaches reflect that. How many HOF'er's in the bunch?
Still pulling for Buzz but in my heart and head I really feel he is in over his head. One step further, if he was coaching at UNO this year I would think he was in over his head.
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on March 23, 2009, 01:44:20 PM
TC was in no way a risky hire. He was almost as hot as Alford & Quinn. He also was probably the best hire. Yes I did just write that.
And I think Buzz was not a risky hire. If he stays at A&M one more year and then follows Billy G to UK, all of a sudden he's the hottest AC out there.
What I'm proud of with MU in this whole coaching search is they went with what worked.
KO (young, major program AC)
TC (young major program AC)
Buzz (young major program AC)
Hiring Les or McKillop would have been a reactionary move (like Deane). It would be saying we need stability we need an old guy who will never leave. I say forget that. Hire a young hungry AC who wants a better job. He'll work his tail off to get it. If he leaves you, fine, go hire the next guy. As long as your coaches are bolting for better programs, you're doing OK.
How would he be the hottest AC out there when looking at Gillespie's two year run at KY? I'm just asking, not trying to start anything.
The difference with the Buzz hire compared to TC and KO are where they came from. TC and KO came from the absolute ELITE of basketball. Buzz came from one year as an assistant after coming off one year of a losing record as head coach (yes, N.O. had many issues to deal with). Buzz's assistant coach pedigree at CSU, A&M, Navarro College isn't like being an assistant at PITT for 5+ years (DIXON), or Arizona (KO), or Michigan State (TC).
Now, I don't disagree with the approach of hiring "young, aggressive, hungry" coaches, but of course by that very definition you're hiring someone that will do this for a few years and move on again, thus making MU a stepping stone situation again and again and again.
What would be ideal is to get someone that is young and wants to be here for a long time. Maybe that's Buzz, I don't know. Painter at Purdue, Miller at Xavier, Bennett at WSU.
But I also think you're saying that hiring experience somehow doesn't work or doesn't make someone hungry is not accurate either. UCLA hired "HUNGRY" Steve Lavin and ultimately replaced him with EXPERIENCED Ben Howland as just one of many examples. Wake Forest went with experienced Skip Prosser and he was doing a great job before his death (now the assistant they promoted up....jury is still out). There's some vampire like guy over in Madison that wasn't a spring chicken when was hired as well. There are examples on both sides of the ledger.
In the whole timing scenario, the one guy I wish would have been able so we could take a serious look was Darrin Horn.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 23, 2009, 01:53:09 PM
Clever! Al McGuire was hired in 1964.
I'd be interested in seeing the list of Navarro College graduates with giant holes and red flags in their resumes who went on to become great college coaches. Is it longer than the one that contains Al McGuire?
Wait ... aren't you the guy who saw fit to raise Al McGuire's NBA playing experience as part of his strong resume that would have us talking? Now you, for all intents, note that it's meaningless because he was hired in 1964?
Which is it?
The fact is great college don't often make great college coaches. NBA players who make great college coaches are even more rare. Did any of the Sweet 16 coaches ever play in the NBA? I don't think so, but maybe I'm missing one.
I don't know any other good college coaches from Navarro College.
But I know some good coaches have sprung from powerhouse programs like American International (Jim Calhoun); Bucknell (Jay Wright); Army (Coach K); Massachusettes-Amherst (Rick Pitino); Wheeling College (John Beilein); Northern Michigan (Tom Izzo); Weber State (Ben Howland); Augsburg College (Lute Olson); High Point University (Tubby Smith); Wilkes University (Bo Ryan); and Clarion State (John Calipari).
Clearly where one attended college dictates one's ability to coach.
You're always making such good points.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 23, 2009, 01:21:48 PM
Al McGuire was a former NBA player!! He was a great, great college player at St. John's. If there were a press conference announcing his hiring at Marquette we'd be talking about his basketball accomplishments, not how many letters he wrote pleading for jobs or how many coaches press conferences he "studied" on ESPN.
There is no comparison. None.
Sounds like Jim Les
Quote from: Pakuni on March 23, 2009, 02:43:38 PM
Wait ... aren't you the guy who saw fit to raise Al McGuire's NBA playing experience as part of his strong resume that would have us talking? Now you, for all intents, note that it's meaningless because he was hired in 1964?
Which is it?
What I'm saying, brainiac, was that in 1964 there was no established record of failure of former NBA coaches at the college level and it would absolutely be a selling point to the Milwaukee and Marquette community back then. Are you going to dispute this? Marquette was a program in the toilet and they hired a guy who not only played for a legendary college coach in Frank McGuire (and had his recommendation in his back pocket), he had the New York Knicks on his resume. I am saying Al McGuire's resume was so far beyond the toilet paper our coach's was printed on it's not even close.
How many of the coaches that you listed actually played basketball in college? How about high school? I'm going to go ahead and guess every single one of them.
Did any of them abandon their previous jobs? Would any of them have been considered for a major D1 coaching job at their universities had they left their previous job less than a year after accepting it? Would Wisconsin Green-Bay have hired any of those guys? Would Wisconsin Green-Bay have hired Buzz Williams as their head coach last year? The answer is no. The only university in the country...major, mid-major or low-major...who would have considered Buzz Williams as their head coach last year was Marquette.
Are you seriously arguing that this wasn't a risky hire?
I don't even mind the guy, but you're just nuts.
Quote from: Pardner on March 23, 2009, 03:00:32 PM
Sounds like Jim Les
Jim Les has a FAR superior resume to Buzz Williams. It's not even close. Jim Les also played for the school he coaches. It'd be like Diener coming back to coach the Warriors.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 23, 2009, 03:03:49 PM
Jim Les has a FAR superior resume to Buzz Williams. It's not even close. Jim Les also played for the school he coaches. It'd be like Diener coming back to coach the Warriors.
Why are you so obsessed with Buzz's resume and who would or would not have hired him last year?
Whether Buzz Williams is a great coach at Marquette or terrible coach at Marquette is not dependent on where he went to college. Not dependent on where or whether he played. Not dependent on whether UW-Green Bay would have hired him. Not dependant on where he coached previously.
None of those things matter.
It's wholly irrelevant and it's even less relevant today, now that we've got about 12 months of work experience at Marquette to talk about.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 23, 2009, 03:09:08 PM
Why are you so obsessed with Buzz's resume and who would or would not have hired him last year?
Whether Buzz Williams is a great coach at Marquette or terrible coach at Marquette is not dependent on where he went to college. Not dependent on where or whether he played. Not dependent on whether UW-Green Bay would have hired him. Not dependant on where he coached previously.
None of those things matter.
It's wholly irrelevant and it's even less irrelevant today, now that we've got about 12 months of work experience at Marquette to talk about.
352 days.
Let's face it, Buzz had no resume and that is why he was on no other school's short list. When Buzz was announced last year there were plenty of laughs around the country. Biggest one came from TC because he knows the business better than any of us.
Buzz was picked out of ease and not selected by his resume/interview. The process was flawed and the selection very possibly could be one that takes us back 10 years.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 23, 2009, 03:09:08 PM
Why are you so obsessed with Buzz's resume and who would or would not have hired him last year?
Whether Buzz Williams is a great coach at Marquette or terrible coach at Marquette is not dependent on where he went to college. Not dependent on where or whether he played. Not dependent on whether UW-Green Bay would have hired him. Not dependant on where he coached previously.
None of those things matter.
It's wholly irrelevant and it's even less relevant today, now that we've got about 12 months of work experience at Marquette to talk about.
Obsessed? This thread is about risky hires. His resume made him a risk. That's not obsession, it's sticking to the topic.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 23, 2009, 03:03:49 PM
Jim Les has a FAR superior resume to Buzz Williams. It's not even close. Jim Les also played for the school he coaches. It'd be like Diener coming back to coach the Warriors.
Is it April 1?
You're seriously suggesting that a guy with ZERO college coaching experience before going to Bradley, where he has made exactly 1 NCAA tournament in 7 years, and that makes him "FAR superior"?
The only guy who's completely nuts here is you.
Having had the opportunity to see Buzz Williams as an MU assistant while he ran recruiting rings around Les, the notion that Les was somehow less risky boggles the mind.
In college basketball, recruiting is more important than anything else, and Buzz led a SIGNIFICANT improvement in recruiting in just one season as assistant.
Seriously, which is less risk?
--Buzz wouldn't be able to duplicate as HC what he already proved he can do as an assistant at both Texas A&M and MU.
--Les would be able to recruit much better than he ever did at Bradley.
You are correct--its not even close. Les is the far more risky choice.